Beckman v. Oppenheimer & Co. et al
Filing
8
ORDER approving in part 7 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 2 days. Case Track: Standard. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. Summary Judgment Motions due by 6/3/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 2/1/2013. Miscellaneous Deadline set for 12/3/2012.(mm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Edward Robert Beckman
v.
Civil No. 12-cv-343-PB
Oppenheimer & Co., et al.
O R D E R
On November 5, 2012, a preliminary pretrial conference was
held in this case.
Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf and
Attorney Paul J. Alfano appeared for defendants.
The parties’ proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 7) is
adopted with the following amendments:
1. Electronic Discovery
The court orders the parties to file a supplement to the
proposed discovery plan for the reasons explained below.
The parties’ statement regarding electronic discovery is
inadequate.
Rule 26(f)(3)(C) requires that a plan “must”
include the parties’ views on electronic discovery “including
the form or forms in which it should be produced . . . .”
The
parties’ proposed discovery plan includes the following
statement:
“Defendant does not believe at this time that there
are any material issues with respect to electronic information.”
More is required under the rule.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and
file, on or before November 26, 2012, a joint motion to
supplement the discovery plan that outlines more specifically
their plans/agreements with respect to electronic discovery.
The court refers the parties to the following outline of
potential issues to discuss:
A. Preservation. Counsel should attempt to agree on steps
the parties will take to segregate and preserve ESI in
order to avoid accusations of spoliation.
B. E-mail Information. Counsel should attempt to agree on
the scope of e-mail discovery and e-mail search
protocol.
C. Back-up and Archival Data. Counsel should attempt to
agree on whether responsive back-up and archival data
exists, the extent to which back-up and archival data is
reasonably accessible, and who will bear the cost of
obtaining such data.
D. Format and Media. Counsel should attempt to agree on the
format and media to be used in the production of ESI,
and whether production of some or all ESI in paper form
is agreeable in lieu of production in electronic format.
E. Reasonably Accessible Information and Costs. Counsel
should attempt to determine if any responsive ESI is not
reasonably accessible, i.e., is accessible only by
incurring undue burdens or costs.
F. Privileged or Trial Preparation Materials. Counsel also
should attempt to reach agreement regarding what will
happen in the event privileged or trial preparation
materials are inadvertently disclosed. See Fed. R.
Evid. 502.
2
2. Track Assignment: Standard.
3. Disclosure of Claims Against Unnamed Parties: December 1, 2012.
4. Trial Date: Trial is scheduled for the two-week trial period
beginning October 1, 2013.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
November 5, 2012
cc: Edward Robert Beckman, pro se
Paul J. Alfano, Esq.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?